Avandia

The Avandia MDL, centralized in 2007 over claims that the diabetes drug rosiglitazone was linked to elevated cardiovascular risk, now shows just two pending actions — a docket that has already moved through its major settlement waves and into a long residual tail. Funding availability at this stage looks nothing like an early-stage or bellwether-phase mass tort: there is no active claims pipeline of new plaintiffs, no ongoing intake from law firms building inventory, and no settlement-fund calendar driving near-term cash events. What remains is almost certainly a small number of claims that fell outside earlier settlement programs or were filed and litigated on an individual track.

For a litigation funder or portfolio-finance allocator, that means Avandia is not a docket to build a book against today. Any diligence on a remaining Avandia claim would need to establish why that specific plaintiff's case was not resolved in the earlier settlement rounds — whether it involves a distinct injury theory, a later diagnosis, or a procedural posture (such as an opt-out or late-filed claim) that kept it outside the main settlement structure. That context materially changes the pricing and duration risk relative to a claim that simply followed the standard settlement path.

Medical-lien considerations remain relevant in principle for any surviving personal-injury claim in this docket, since Avandia claims involve cardiovascular injury allegations with associated treatment costs, but the practical financing question is less about lien structuring and more about confirming there is a live, unresolved claim worth financing at all given how far the overall docket has wound down.

Given the maturity of this docket, a law firm holding one of the remaining Avandia matters is better served by single-case evaluation than a portfolio facility, and Criterica Capital's mass-tort finance line is structured to underwrite exactly this kind of individual, late-stage claim rather than assume portfolio-scale volume that no longer exists here.

Criterica Intelligence maintains a structural brief on this docket's procedural history for firms assessing what, if anything, remains to litigate.

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.